What are the advantages of using automated tools, as opposed to manual review? What are the disadvantages?
This applies both to external blackbox vulnerability scanning, and to static code analysis.

From the original Area51 proposal

6 Answers 6


Some good answers here, but I think some points were missing:

  • Automatic tools finish a lot faster than manual testing, by orders of magnitude.
  • Automatic tools cover the breadth, but you need manual testing for depth. (Breadth both in range of attacks/tests, and in probing all interfaces / lines of code).
  • Autotools are great for the common low hanging fruit, but if you need to step up the level of security you'll need to go deeper manually.
  • Manual testing cannot possibly cover every bit of the system (whether it's lines of code, decompiled assembly, web pages and parameters, web services, etc), whereas autotools are great for that.
  • As @Andreas said, sometimes there is a complex vector, that autotools cannot possibly imagine, but will be obvious to an expert.
  • Autotools cannot test for business logic flaws, they hunt the technical flaws only - and the more common ones, at that.
  • Manual testing is not consistent.
  • Manual testing depends on the skill of the individual tester (oh, the horror!!), but you really need to know what you're looking for.
  • Likewise, with manual testing you cannot get regression testing.
  • Autotools are automatically updated with the newest exploits, but a human usually won't remember all the vectors he read about two years ago...
  • On the other hand, autotools will only get updated once every while, but a human can learn about a spanking new technique and implement it the very next day.
  • Autotools usually include a very high percentage of false positives (from 30% to over 90%, depending on the methodology and choice of product).
  • Autotools usually come with a decent reporting suite.

Bottom line? They both have a place, and should both be used in the correct context. For low-quality apps, first start by fixing everything the autotool can find, and don't bother with investing in a proper manual review just yet. When you raise the security level, and gotten rid of the low hanging fruit, go the distance and perform an in-depth manual review. And, when you're doing manual testing - first step, is running the autotool, filter the results, THEN begin the real testing.


Automated pros:

  • Fast - checks per time;
  • Does not need attention (mostly);
  • Can be scheduled and reported;

Automated cons:

  • Does not cover smart attack vectors;
  • Not always ensures full process control;

Manual approach basically converts automated pros/cons to their cons/pros. But manual approach requires more deep knowledge of subject.


Semi-automation is the answer. Human intelligence piloting automated tools is the best bet for maximizing test coverage and depth, not either or.

What works: Smart people driving the tools.

What fails: Everything else.


Automated tools miss things and report things falsely, thus requiring manual work.

Therefore, all automated work creates more manual work.

You may also want to see my answer to this question on White-box vs. Black-box where I explain the best practices as dictated by the literature.


Automated tools can do some things better than a human, and vice versa.

Automated tools for example can try 100s of different ways to find an XSS vulnerability, more than a human can remember. Every time someone finds a new way to do XSS, it is added to the tool and it will test for it.

On the other hand these tools aren't smart, they don't draw conclusions. A human might conclude that when you do X on page 1, and Y on page 2, the result on page Z will be different then excepted.

  • Do you mean XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) or XXE (XML External Entity attack)?
    – atdre
    Commented Nov 14, 2010 at 12:29
  • I meant XSS (looks like I had a slight mind freeze when I wrote XXS). But it could very well be that XXE is also checked by some tools. Commented Nov 16, 2010 at 10:56

In a recent post, I read that Radware found that attacks that last only an hour or less are on the rise – and more than half of the three biggest attacks fell into that category. The implications of these findings are clear. It’s likely that very soon, even long attack campaigns will be based on short bursts of traffic – bursts which are difficult, if not impossible, for humans to effectively mitigate. It seems to me then that automated security is the future, however, there must still be a human element to properly set this up.

  • Hi Felix, I'm not sure how this answers the question? It doesn't seem to relate to automated testing vs manual tests...?
    – AviD
    Commented Jul 26, 2016 at 16:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .